Jump to content

Talk:The Angry Birds Movie: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 134: Line 134:
I would also like to bring up the consensus on [[Velma (TV series)]], which has a consensus on [[Talk: Velma (TV series)|its talk page]] from many editors that its critic score is mixed, despite it having a lower critic score than this move, with Velma being at 40%. Yes, I know [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], but this shows that there is a consensus, on its talk page from very many editors that anything in the 40% range on Rotten Tomatoes should be considered to be mixed. [[User:Unnamed anon|Unnamed anon]] ([[User talk:Unnamed anon|talk]]) 07:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to bring up the consensus on [[Velma (TV series)]], which has a consensus on [[Talk: Velma (TV series)|its talk page]] from many editors that its critic score is mixed, despite it having a lower critic score than this move, with Velma being at 40%. Yes, I know [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], but this shows that there is a consensus, on its talk page from very many editors that anything in the 40% range on Rotten Tomatoes should be considered to be mixed. [[User:Unnamed anon|Unnamed anon]] ([[User talk:Unnamed anon|talk]]) 07:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
:I'd go with "mixed". A quick glance at the website shows that the 43% comes from a wide spread of ratings, high and low, which is where the ''average'' is gained. By definition, that's a mixed review. Also taking into account - as you say - Otherstuffexists, but that seems like a reasonable argument to me. Although I'm normally against using otherstuff as an argument, this seems to be a case where an attempt at consistency between articles trumps otherstuff. To be honest - it's a fair argument - why is 40% in article "A" mixed, but 43% in article "B" negative? [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 10:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
:I'd go with "mixed". A quick glance at the website shows that the 43% comes from a wide spread of ratings, high and low, which is where the ''average'' is gained. By definition, that's a mixed review. Also taking into account - as you say - Otherstuffexists, but that seems like a reasonable argument to me. Although I'm normally against using otherstuff as an argument, this seems to be a case where an attempt at consistency between articles trumps otherstuff. To be honest - it's a fair argument - why is 40% in article "A" mixed, but 43% in article "B" negative? [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 10:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
: No, Rotten Tomatoes says it received negative reviews. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 14:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:57, 19 July 2023

Lego Packs

I think we have to wait until there is more... citable information, but there are leaks of images for the Lego sets on Reddit. The articles cited for this in the article don't actually mention Lego Dimensions. This is mostly side information for people looking at the article and maybe a suggestion to think about changing the phrasing in that section. Daeldra (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Protect The Page

Can anybody please protect the page immediately? They keep messing around and inserting false information with the Cast section that aren't confirmed and unsourced, I feel more annoyed with this. Thank you. 76.174.21.219 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's getting pretty disruptive. I'll file a request at WP:RFPP and see what happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard tobygames is going the be perry not sure if it's real or not Xxx baymax 420 xxx (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of racism from a movie about birds and pigs.

Okay guys, quit kidding around. If this is not a joke then some people have been drinking alot of bleach.

This was the webpage used as a source said part of the article http://fusion.net/story/261690/alt-right-angry-birds-movie-theory-8chan-4chan/

Please, guys, its a kids movie. Dont make this political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.255.49.47 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how being a kids' movie absolves it of any political messages. But let's refrain from discussing it until notable sources have first. TangoFett (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016

The angry birds movie is based on angry birds 2600:1004:B141:A759:C0C:FF4:1A36:A8A4 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article already states that. RudolfRed (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2016

I need to edit one word from the following sentence from the section Soundtrack: "The album will be release on May 6, 2016". It should be "released" not "release". 95.129.0.39 (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sam Sailor Talk! 13:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2016

Add the American currency equivalent next to the €100 on the Production page, and change the name of Zootropolis to Zootopia (Zootropolis is used in European territories only). 130.126.255.172 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done The source itself is stated in euros, so I'm reluctant to change that part. The calculation depends on the year and how accurate the 100m euro value actually is. I did rename Zootropolis to Zootopia. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 01:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

The movie has been released today in Finland and the UK. 88.109.91.135 (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have proof. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985949/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt 85.210.144.139 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC) |answered = My IP is dynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.144.139 (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

There's a typo in the 'Production' section. Gad at first defclined to star in 2001:569:7857:4900:F176:9E44:21FA:3DBF (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rickroll

They used the song "Never Gonna Give You Up" in the movie, does that mean they effectively Rickrolled their entire audience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.60.224 (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I did some copy editing and removed dead Wikilinks. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2016


Apkalogris (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Blank request. GABgab 22:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The movie premiered in Iraq

The Angry Birds Movie premiered in Erbil (Iraqi Kurdistan) on May 10 according to local press http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/100520166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.3.111 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016


Could you please take Noah Schnapp, Owen Wilder Vaccaro, Chris Miller, and Mike Mitchell off the voice cast list? They are not listed in the credits for this movie.

71.243.236.155 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Please provide source as well to support the change. -- Dane2007 talk 04:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rovio is planning the Angry Birds Movie sequel

I heard that Rovio is planning the sequel to The Angry Birds Movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.24.143 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

u right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.255.172 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable info removed

I have removed the following claim:

* [[Noah Schnapp]], [[Pierce Gagnon]], and [[Owen Vaccaro|Owen Wilder Vaccaro]] as The Blues {{efn|name=ab}}

because IMDB does not confirm that any of those three actors has ever appeared in anything in the Angry Birds franchise. Also, at [1] Noah Schnapp firmly denies having been in The Angry Birds Movie. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

Carlie24050 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Noah Schnapp he wasn't the voice of Jay from Angry Birds. It was actually JoJo Siwa

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten tomatoes "negative" or "mixed"

So, NinjaRobotPirate is very insistent that the 43% on Rotten Tomatoes is "negative" instead of "mixed", but 43% is the exact same percentage as its Metacritic score, which is explicitly identified as "mixed". Yes, I know that the way the two sites measure scores is different, but these are the exact same percentages, one of which defines it as mixed instead of negative. and even the Rotten Tomatoes consensus is not particularly scathing (calling it "substantially more entertaining than it has any right to be", which, even if it is leaning closer towards "bad", is not scathing enough to call it "negative". NinjaRobotPirate left a message on my talk page accusing me of original research with this link in an attempt to explain, but honestly this link just explains how the Rotten Tomatoes system works, but does not explain at what specific percents the scores are considered "negative" or "mixed".

I would also like to bring up the consensus on Velma (TV series), which has a consensus on its talk page from many editors that its critic score is mixed, despite it having a lower critic score than this move, with Velma being at 40%. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this shows that there is a consensus, on its talk page from very many editors that anything in the 40% range on Rotten Tomatoes should be considered to be mixed. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "mixed". A quick glance at the website shows that the 43% comes from a wide spread of ratings, high and low, which is where the average is gained. By definition, that's a mixed review. Also taking into account - as you say - Otherstuffexists, but that seems like a reasonable argument to me. Although I'm normally against using otherstuff as an argument, this seems to be a case where an attempt at consistency between articles trumps otherstuff. To be honest - it's a fair argument - why is 40% in article "A" mixed, but 43% in article "B" negative? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Rotten Tomatoes says it received negative reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]